









.^^ ^% 


















V c°^:i^^*°o y,.^I..\ c,°^C.^^% 




'^0' 











vV - « ^ ^j. 







7 , ♦ • ** 












































* •J' 







V 4. 
























^•/ \/^^\/ %^^-/ ^^/^^\/ 



i' 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. L ¥. POWELL, OF lENTUCIY, 



ON 



EXECUTIYE USUEPATIO N,, 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 



JULY II, I86I. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE 
1861. ,, 



Weet. Bee. BihU l5oa 






SPEECH. 



JOINT RESOLUTION to approve and confirm 
certain actsof tiie President of the United States 
for suppressing insurrection and rebellion. 
Whereas:, since ilie ailjournment of Congress, on the 4th 
day of March last, a formidable insiurection in certain 
Statesof this Union lias arrayed itself in armed hostility to 
the Government of the United States, constitutionally ad- 
ministered :'and wiiereas the President of the United States 
did, under the extraordinary exigencies thus presented, ex- 
ercise certain powers and adopt certain measures for the 
preservation of tliis Government — that is to say : First. He 
did, on the 15th day of Apri) last, issue his proclamation 
calling upon the several States for s<;venty-tive thousand 
men to suppress such insurrectionary combinations, and to 
cause the laws to be faithlully executed. Secondly. He did, 
on the 19tli day of April last, issue a proclamation setting 
on foot ii blockade of the ports within the Slates of South 
Carolina, Geoi^ia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louis- 
iana, and Texas. Thirdly. He did, on the iiTth day of 
.^pril last, issue a proclamation <'stablishing a blockade of 
the ports within the States of Virginia and North Carolina. 
Fourthly. He did, by order of the :27th day of April last, 
addressed to the Commanding General of t"lie .\rmy of the 
United States, authorize that officer to suspend the writ of 
habeas corpus at any poi#t on or in the vicinity of any mil- 
itary line l)etween the city of Philadelphia and the city of 
Washington. Fifthly. He did, on the 3d day of May last, 
issue a proclamation calling into the service of the United 
States tbrty-tvvo thousand and thirty-four volunteers, in- 
creasing the regular Army by tiie addition of twenty-two 
thousand seven hundred and fourteen men,' and the Navy 
by an addition of eighteen thousand seamen. Sixthly. He 
did, on the luih day of May last, issue a proclamation au- 
thorizing the commander of the (brces of the United States 
on the coast of Florida to suspend the writ of habeas corpui, 
if necessary. All of which proclamations and orders have 
been submitted to this Congress. Now, therefore, 

Be it resoU'cd h\j the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the Uuitcd States of ./Imcricaiii Con^-ess assembled. That 
all of the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and orders, 
hereinbefore mentioned, be, and the same are hereby, ap- 
proved and declared to be in all respects legal and valid, to 
the same intent, and with the same effect, as if they had 
been issuCd and done under the previous express authority 
and direction of the Congress of the United States. 

The above resolution being under considera- 
tion, 

Mr. POWELL said : 

Mr. President: I desire at this time to make 
a few brief remarks upon the pending resolu- 
tion. We have fallen upon very strange times. 
The Congress of the nation has been assembled 
in extraordinary session for the purpo.se of con- 
sidering matters of the gravest import. We 
are in the midst of a revolution which has dis- 



membered the Confederacy. We are now called 
upon to vote for a resolution approving the acts 
of the President of the United States that are spe- 
cifically set forth in the resolution. Sir, I con- 
sider that the President, in many acts set forth in 
this resolution, has violated the Constitution of 
the land. The object of this resolution, as 1 have 
before stated, is to approve and justify the Exec- 
utive in those acts. It is not my purpose to enter 
into any very elaborate argument. I shall con- 
tent myself with very briefly stating the reasons 
why I cannot vote for the resolution, and I shall 
proceed at once to the consideration of the reso- 
lution, and notice each and every act set forth in 
it which we are called upon to approve and sanc- 
tion. 

Mr. President, the powers and duties of the 
President of the United States are prescribed in 
the Constitution . That elevated and distinguished 
officer of the Government has no more power to 
infract the Constitution or the laws than the hum- 
blest citizen of the land. His duties are prescribed 
in the Constitution and the law's, and he swears 
to be true and faithful to that Constitution. I wii 
read the clause of the Constitution prescribing the 
oath of the President of the United States. Before 
entering on the duties of his office, the Chief Ex- 
ecutive Magistrate takes this oath: 

" I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that 1 will faithfully 
execute the office of President of the United States, and 
will, to tlie best of my ability, preserve, protect, and de- 
fend the Constitution of the United States." 

Each Senator and each official of this Govern- 
ment, on entering upon the discharge of the func- 
tions of his office, takes an oath to support the 
Constitution; and I should consider that I was 
recreant to my duty as a Senator, if I did not op- 
pose the act of every officer of the Government 
who, as I conceived, had violated the Constilu- 



tion of the country. The acts that are set forth 

in the resolution under consideration are plain and 
distinct. After the ordinary whereas, it states: 

" First. He did, on the lotli day of April last, issue liis 
proclamation cnlling upon the several States for seventy- 
five thousand men to suppress such insurrectionary com- 
binations, and to cause the laws to be faitlifully executed." 

That call was made under the statute of 1795, 
the provision of which I will read: 

"That whenever the laws of tlic United States shall be 
opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any State, 
by eonibiuations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordi- 
nary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested 
in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the Pres- 
ident of the United States to call forth the militia of such 
State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary 
to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be 
duly executed ; and the use of militia so to be called forth 
may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of 
thirty days after the commencement of the then next ses- 
sion of Congress." 

That is the only law within my knowledge thai 
authorizes the Pi-esident to call out the militia of 
the United States, I readily admit that if the call 
for seventy-five thousand men was made solely 
for the purpose of protecting this capital, and for 
the purpose designated in this resolution, it was 
constitutional and valid. If, however, the pur- 
pose of the call for seventy-five thousand men 
was for the purpose of making war on the sover- 
eign States of this Union, I hold the act to be 
invalid, because I hold tliat we have no power to 
make war upon a State of this Union. There i.s 
no such warrant in the Constitution. Our illus- 
trious fathers, when framing that instrument, de- 
clined to give any such power. It was expressly 
proposed to clothe the Government with power 
to coerce a Slate; and after a most elaborate de- 
bate, in which such men as Madison, Hamilton, 
Ellsworth, and others participated, it was unani- 
mously rejected. However, sir, so far as that is 
concerned, I shall say no more. The constitu- 
tionality of the act calling out the seventy-five 
thousand men, in my judgment, depends alto- 
gether on the uses the Pi-esident intended to make 
of the army which he organized. I confess that 
the creation of such a vast army looked to me 
very much like desiring a war of subjugation: 
So far, however, as the President acted in defense 
of the capital, I believe he had the power to call 
forth the militia under the act of 179.5 for that 
purpose. That act prescribes that the President 
shall call forth the militia, but not for a longer 
term than thirty days after the next meeting of 
Congress. I believe his proclamation calling for 



seventy-five thousand men, so far as the time 
was concerned, was within the purview of that 
statute. 

The next act of the President is set forth in the 
preamble in these words: 

" Secondly. He did, on the 19th day of A\yTU last, Issue 
a proclamation setting on foot n blockade of the pons within 
the States of South Carolina, Georgia, .Alabama, Florida, 
IMissiasippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Thirdly. He did, on 
the 27th day of April last, issue a proclamation establishing 
a blockade of the ports within the States of Virginia and 
North Carolina." 

I hold, sir, that, under the Constitution, the 
President has no power to blockade the ports of 
the United States. Congress alone possesses the 
war-making power, under our system of govern- 
ment. A blockade is neccs.sarily a war measure; 
and, in my judgment, it could not be proclaimed 
by the President until Congress had declared war. 
The Constitution declares that Congress shall 
have power — 

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, 
and make rules concerning captures on land and water." 

The power to declare war is vested in the Con- 
gress, and in the Congress alone. The President 
of the United Slates cannot constitutionally and 
lawfully exercise any power of proclaiming war 
or calling out the militia except for the purpose 
designated by the statute that I have read, unless 
Congress shall fir.st declare war. There is another 
reason why he had no power, in my judgment, 
under the Constitution, to issue this proclamation 
for a blockade. It is declared in the Constitution 
that — 

" No preference shall be given by any regulation pf com- 
merce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of 
another ; nor shall vessels bound to or from one State be 
obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another." 

Why,«ir, the President has not only given a 
preference to the ports of one State over another, 
but he has absolutely, so far as all practical pur- 
poses are concerned, swept certain ports out of 
existence by this blockade. He has_ no such 
power under the Constitution; and I cannot, as a 
Senator, sanction any resolution that clothes the 
President of the nation with the war-making 
power. His duties are prescribed by the Consti- 
tution and by the laws of the land, and he is cul- 
pable whenever he violates the one or disobeys 
the other. 

Jj Again: the preamble to this resolution con- 

L tinues: 

" Fourthly. He did, by an order of the 27lh day of April 
last, addressed to the Commanding General of the Army of 



tlie United St;itcs, authorize tlijit officer to suspend the writ 
o{ habeas corpus at any point on or in the vicinity of any 
military line between the city of PliiUulelpIiia and the city 
of Washington." 

It furthur recites: 

"Sixthly. He did, on the 10th day of May last, issue a 
proclamation authorizing the commander of the forces of 
the United States on the coast of Florida to suspend the 
writ of habeas corpus, if necessary." 

I conceive that tlie President of the United 
States lias no power, under the Constitution and 
the laws of the land which he has sworn to sup- 
port and execute, to suspend the writ of habeas 
corpus. There is a single provision of the Con- 
stitution upon the subject, and that, tliere can be 
no doubt, confers upon Congress alone the right 
to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, under such 
circumstances as are prescribed in the Constitu- 
tion itself. The Constitution declares, and that, 
too, under the head of" the legislative pou'er:" 

" The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be 
suspended, unless when, in case of rebellion and invasion, 
tlie public safety may require it." 

The power is given to Congress, not to the 
President of the United States. I know that some 
gentlemen contend that the Constitution being 
silent as to who shall exercise this power, the 
President may as well do it as Congress. But, 
sir, that clause of the Constitution is put under the 
head of " legislative," not "executive " powers. 
Besides, sir, foriunately we are not left to work 
out our own interpretation of the Constitution on 
this subject. It has been held and decided by the 
most august judicial tribunal of the land that Con- 
gress alone has that power. Chief Justice Mar- 
shall, in the case ex parte Bollman & Swartwout, 
in 4 Cranch, 101, expressly decides that Congress 
alone has that power. Here is his language; 

" If at any time the public safety shouJd require a sus- 
pension of the powers vested by this act in tiie courts of 
tlie United States, it is for the Legislature to say so. That 
question depends on political considerations, on which the 
Legislature is to decide. Until the Legislative will bo 
expressed, this court can on5y see its duty, and niust*)bey 
the laws." 

It has been decided by the highest judicial tri- 
'bunal in the land, that the legislative power alone 
has the authority to suspend the writ of habeas 
corpus, and then only in the cases provided in the 
Constitution. Judge Story, in his Commentaries 
on the Constitution, also holds the same doctrine. 
Speaking of the habeas corpus clause in the Con- 
stitution, he says: 

•' It is obvious that eases of a peculiar emergency may 
arise which may justify, uay, even reqifire, the temporary 



suspension of any right to the writ. But as it has fre- 
quently happened in foreign countries, and even in Eng- 
land, that the writ has, upon various pretexts and occa- 
sions, been suspended, whereby persons apprehended upoij 
suspicion have sutiercd a long imprisonment, sometimes 
from design, and sometimes, because they were forgotten 
the light to suspend it is expressly confined to cases of re- 
belliim or invasion, where tiie public safety may require 
it— a very just and wholesome restraint, which cuts down 
atti blow a fruitful means of oppression, capable of being 
abused in bad times to the worst of purposes. Hitherto, 
no suspension of the writ has ever been authorized by Con- 
gress since the eslablishmentof the Constitution. It would 
seem, as the power is given to Congress to suspend the 
writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, that 
the right to judge whetiier the exigency had arisen must 
exclusively belong to that body." — 3 Store's Commentaries 
on Ike Constitution, section 1,336. 

That, sir, is explicit. I think, therefore, there 
can be no- doubt that the President, when he as- 
sumed to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, vio- 
lated the Constitution and laws of his country 
ihathehad sworn to defend, support, and protect. 
He has exercised a power that has not been ex- 
ercised, or attempted to be exercised, by a sover- 
eign of Great Britain since 1688. Judge Black- 
stone, in the first volume of his Commentaries, 
asserts that the right to suspend the writ of hal^eas 
corpus in Great Britain is in Parliament alone. 
The king, the sovereign, has no such power, and 
that has been held by the liberty-loving men of 
Great Britain from the days of Magna Charta to 
this time. "When the English barons exacted of 
the ignominious and pusillanimous King John 
that great charter of liberty, they secured in it 
their rights in this matter of habeas corpus. We 
find in that celebrated charter this language: 

" No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned, or disseized 
or outlawed, or any way destroyed, nor will we go upon 
him, nor will we send upon him, except by the legal judg- 
ment of ills peers, or by the law of the land. 

" To none will we sell, to none will wc deny, to none 
will wc delay, right or justice." 

That is the language the barons used in that 
celebrated charter which they extorted from 
King John. From that day, sir, down to the 
revolution of 1GS8, which placed William and 
Mary, of Orange, upon the throne of Great Brit- 
ain, I know there was a contest constantly going 
on between the people and their sovereigns as to 
whether that writ could be suspended by the king. 
By the act of Charles II, which is commonly called 
a second Magna Charta, it was secured to the citi- 
zen. Heavy fines were imposed on the judges 
who should refuse to grant that writ. The mode 
and manner of administering the law touching 



6 



the habeas corpus was declared in that celebrated 
statute, and heavy and vast penalties imposed 
ivpon those who dared to refuse it, or to deny it. 
Since the year 1688, no British sovereign has 
claimed the power to suspend this writ, so far as 
I am advised. 

The President, in suspending this writ, has 
necessarily suspended all the laws of the land 
that require the judges to administer the law. In 
one of the early Congresses, I believe in the very 
first Congress, there was a law passed author- 
izing all the judges of the United States to issue 
this writ. Mr. Lincoln, when he suspends that 
writ, when he denies to the judges of the land 
the power to execute the law, suspends tlie law 
as well as violates the Constitution; ncitlier of 
which he has a right to do. The President is an 
executive officer. He has no right to administer 
the lav/s; he has no right to suspend the laws; 
his sole*duty is to see that they are faithfully 
executed. Sir, the English people, in tlieir bill of 
righte, to which William and Mary, upon their 
accession to the throne, assented, spoke very spe- 
cifically on this subject. The very first charge 
enumerated against King James was, that he en- 
deavored to subvert the religion, laws, and liber- 
ties of the realm — 

" By assuminii aiul oxercisin;; a power of dispensing 
with and isuspending of laws, and the execution of laws, 
willioul consent of Parliament."' 

The President has suspended the laws in vio- 
lation of the Constitution, in a matter, too, most 
essential to the liberties of the people; and Sena- 
tors who have taken an oath to support the Con- 
stitution are called upon not only to sanction, 
but, in the language of the resolution, to approve 
it. Sir, I never, never will approve the vrolation 
of the Constitution of my country by any man, 
high or low, whether it be the President of the 
United States or the most contemptible constable 
in the land: I never can and I never will approve 
a plain, clear, palpable violation of the Constitu- 
tion of my country. I believe that I should be an 
unworthy Senator of a great and free Common- 
wealth if 1 were to do so. 

Senators, in these distracted times, when our 
country is reeling and being torn asunder, when 
hostile armies are about to meet in stern conflict, 
in God's name let us preserve the Constitution of 
our country as. the great temple of our liberties. I 
have looked upon that Constitution as the shield 
that was thrown around the rights of the citizen, 
which protected them in their rights of person and 



property; but that does not seem to be the case 
now. Senators, we have but the Constitution left. 
In Heaven's name let us preserve it. 

We find, Mr. President, that the very first ar- 
ticle of the bill of rights of 1668 i.s in these words: 

" That the pretended power of suspending laws, or the 
execution of laws, \>y regal authority, as it hath been as- 
sumed and exercised of late, is illegal." 

The people of Great Britain, when they framed 
this charter, after the Revolution, declared, in the 
words that I have read, that all this suspending 
of the laws was illegal. They declared, further: 

" That the raising or keeping a standing army within the 
kingdoln in time of peace, unless it be Nvitli consent of Par- 
liament, is illegal." 

Our wise and illustrious fatfiers, who well un- 
derstood the principles of human liberty, incor- 
porated the provisions that I have rcj^d in the 
Constitution of our land. Our English ancestry 
arraigned one king, drove him from his throne, 
and assisted in the inauguration of another; and 
then th'ey passed this gixat charter, this bill of 
rights, to which that sovereign was compelled to 
assent before they would allow hiin to mount the 
throne. And yet, sir, we find the President of 
the United Slatesexercising these powers, in direct 
violation of the Constitution of the land; and we 
are called upon, as representatives of the jxjople 
and ofthc States, notonly to justifyand to excuse, 
but absolutely to approve his acts. I will read 
that part ofthc resolution: 

" That all the cxtraoidinaiy acts, proclamations, and 
orders hereinbefore inontioncd be, and the same are here- 
by, approved and declared to be in all respects legal and 
valid." 

Is there a Senator here who believes that the 
President ofthc United States has warrant of the 
law and the Constitution for suspending this act 
or habeas corpus? If there is, he holds the Con- 
stitution in a very difi'erent light than did the Su- 
preme Court of the United Slates in the decision 
I h*ve read. Judge Story in his Commentaries, 
and all other commentators on the Constitution. 
I have, to some extent, examined the decisions, 
and I find they all hold the very same doctrine. 

But some gentlemen, as did the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Wii.som] the other day, seem 
to think there was some necessity for it. Where ? 
There could be no necessity that would authorize 
this violation of the Constitution. Several per- 
sons, I have heard, have been imprisoned under 
it; among them, a man by the name of Merryman 
in the city of Baltimore, .and the police commis- 



sioners of thai city, who are now at Fort Mc- 
Henry, and denied the privilege of this writ. I 
think there could have been no necessity for it; 
because this writ, in my judgment, should never 
be suspended, not even in the cases prescribed in 
the Constitution, unless the judges of the country 
are considered too corrupt to administer the law. 
When the judges become too corrupt, in the opin- 
ion of the legislative department, to administer 
the law, then I think that Congress might law- 
fully and properly exercise the power to suspend 
this writ in the instances prescribed in the Con- 
stitution, but not until then. 

The Chief Justice of the United States issued 
his writ to have Mr. Merryman brought before 
him. It was refused. He then, I believe, issued i 
an attachment for contempt against the command- 1 
ing officer at Fort McHenry, General Cadwala- j 
der, and the officer of the court was not permitted j 
to execute that last process. What harm could j 
there have been in having this man, John Mer- 
ryman, brought before the Chief Justice of the 
United States, if he were lawfully imprisoned ? It 
would have been the duty of the Chief Justice to 
investigate the case, and if he found that Merry- 
man was improperly and unlawfully deprived of 
his liberty, to discharge him. If he had been of 
the opinion that he was guilty, and properly im- 
prisoned, and the case was not a bailable one, he 
would have to remand him to the prison; or if, 
in his judgment, it were a bailable case, and the 
man probably guilty, then to dischai-ge him on 
bail. What harm, if the man were really guilty, 
would there have been in bringing him before the 
Chief Justice, and allowing the judgment to be 
rendered.^ Why, sir, if you allow the Executive, 
or any other officer, to suspend this great writ, 
who is it that is secure in his person or his lib- 
erty? If the President can extend this power to 
all subalterns in the Army, notwithstanding the 
laws and the Constitution, which allow freedom 
of speech, and to a Senator the privilege to utter 
his sentiments here without beingquestioned, you 
might be arrested and put into prison before you 
reached your lodgings. I tell you, Senators, 
you should pause before you approve the acts 
of your President, thus ruthlessly violating the 
Constitution of your country and suspending its 
laws. 

I will say no more on that subject; but I will 
proceed to another branch of the argument, for I 
intend to be very brief: 

" Flftlily. He did, on the 3d day of May last, issue a proc- 



lamation calling into the service of the United States forty- 
two thousand and thirty-four volunteers, increasing the 
regular Army by the addition of twenty-two thousand seven 
hundred and fourteen men, and the Navy by an addition of 
eighteen thousand seamen." 

I demand to know of tlie friends of this resolu- 
tion the clause of the Constitution or the law of 
the land that authorized the President of the Uni- 
ted States to double the standing Army, and to 
make so large an increase of the Navy of the Uni- 
ted States. The Constitution of the United States 
is very specific and distinct upon this subject. It 
confers upon the Congress of the United States 
alone the power to raise and support armies, and 
to provide and maintain a navy. I ask Senators 
to point me to the law or to the constitutional 
warrant that authorizes the President of the Uni- 
ted States to raise arrnies. It is specifically de- 
clared in this resolution that he has added to the 
regular Army twenty-two thousand seven hun- 
dred and fourteen men. He has more than doubled 
it. Is there any law authorizing that? Will gen- 
tlemen pretend to say that there is ? Has it any 
warrant in the Constitution? The Constitution 
declares that Congress shall have the power to 
raise and support armies. In the resolution it is 
said that the President has also increased the Navy 
by an addition of eighteen thousand seamen. 

Senators, I suppose, undertake to get clear of 
the illegal act of the President under the plea of 
necessity. That plea of necessity, as was well 
said by my friend from Missouri, [Mr. Polk,] has 
been the plea of tyrants the world over. There 
never was a king, potentate, or sovereign, when 
he was assuming powers that did not belong to 
him for the purpose of crushing the liberties of his 
people, who did not do it under the plea of " neces- 
sity." I hold that that plea, even if it was legal, 
(which it was not, because the Constitution de- 
nies him that power,) is not well taken, for the 
necessity did not exist. Was the capital of the 
United States saved by the increase of twenty-two 
thousand men to the regular Army ? Was it saved 
by adding eighteen thousand men to the Navy? 
I affirm, in the presence of the Senate, that it was - 
not. What saved it? If saved at all, it was saved ' 
by the volunteer force that came to the standai'dvJ 
of the Government under the proclamation of ths-- 
President. I do not know whether the confed- 
erate States intended to take this capital. If they, 
did, it was the duty of the President to use all the • 
means confided to him by the Constitution to-'> 
resist the attempt. That I cheerfully admit. Butt 
sir, if the capital was saved from an attack it wa»i 



8 



saved by the volunteer force of the country which 
was called out under the first proclamation of the 
President. 

Senators on the other side of the Chamber and 
indeed all around have been justly eulogistic 
of the promptitude with which volunteers from 
their respective sections of the country rushed to 
the service, at the call of the President. When 
the President had the right to call out a million 
of men for the purpose of protecting .the capital, 
for the time prescribed by the law of 1795, which 
is until thirty days after the expiration of the 
commencement of the then next session of Con- 
gress, will Senators tell me he could not have 
saved this capital without violating the Consti- 
tution and thelaw by adding twenty-two thousand 
to the regular Army, or eighteen thousand seamen 
to the Navy ? Senators, there is not one of you 
who in his conscience believes that this addi- 
tion to the regular Army or Navy saved this 
capital. 

I hope, therefore, that we shall not hear the 
plea of necessity urged any more in this Cham- 
ber, for really and verily it did not exist. The 
call of the President was for seventy-five thou- 
sand men; and the Senator from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Wilson] said that in three or four days 
they were marching from his State to Washing- 
ton. They came from all over the country, twice, 
perhaps three times as many as were called for; 
and they were the persons who saved the capital, , 
if it was saved. I do not think it is becoming the 
manhood of the Senate thus to depreciate the ser- ' 
vices of the volunteers of the country when they 
did this duty, by excusing the President for add- [ 
ingtwenty-two thousand men to the regular Army, I 
and eighteen thousand seamen to the Navy, con- 
trary to the Constitution and laws of the country, 
under the plea of necessity. For one, sir, I never 
will approve of the violation of the Constitution 
of my country on any plea of necessity — never, 
never. I have sworn to be true and loyal to it, 
and I will approve of the act of no man who 
wantonly 'and flagrantly violates it. 

And, sir, so far as this whole matter is con- 
cerned, allow me to say that this secession, this 
revolution, this dismemberment of the Union, or 
whatever you please to call it, was not suddenly 
forced upon the Executive of the United States. 
Before the close of the last session of Congress, 
I believe, there were seven States which declared 
that they were out of the Union. Their Senators 
left this Hall; they had proceeded to form a pro- 



visional government; and they had denied all 
and every allegiance to the Government of the 
United States. Mr. Buchanan, then President 
of the United States, made known these facts to 
Congress in a message, and told them that the 
remedy was with them, for he had no power under 
the Constitution and laws to act in such an emer- 
gency. What were the facts? Why, sir, in the 
lower House they undertook to pass some bill 
touching this subject. I do not remember its 
title; my friend from Ohio, [Mr. Sherman,] 
who was a distinguished member of that House, 
perhaps can tell. I know they spoke of it in 
common parlance as the *' force bill." That bill 
was rejected in the House; at least it was never 
passed. Whether they took a vote on it or not, 
I do not know; but I know it did not pass. 

Then, sir, here were States claiming to be out 
of the Union. Why did not the present President 
of the United States, wljen he came into oflice, 
(if he wished to increase the Army, if he wished 
to increase the Navy, for the purpose of putting 
down this revolutionary movement South,) con- 
vene Congress earlier? He could have convened 
Congress a month or two earlier than he did. He 
di(^ not do it; and therefore I say to Senators that 
I do not think the plea of necessity is well taken. 
This increase of the Army and the Navy, then, 
did not save your capital or your public property 
anywhere. 

Then there was no necessity for this increase 
of the regula^Army; and yet we are called upon 
to approve all these acts, to justify and legalize 
them. Great God! Senators, can you legalize a 
violated and disrupted and broken Constitution? 
In my judgment, you cannot. If you do this on 
the plea of necessity, or because of the extraor- 
dinary times by which we are surrounded, let me 
tell you that you set a precedent most dangerous 
to the people of a free country. I had been of the 
opinion that libertyexistedalone in the supremacy 
of the law. Demagogues may prate as they will; 
but there is no liberty save in the supremacy of 
the laws of your country; and if you allow the 
President, or any other ofliccr, to violate the laws 
of your country with impunity, let me tell you 
that your liberties are fast waning away. Allow 
it in one case, and let some malicious tyrant — a 
Caesar or a Bonaparte — assume that office in fu- 
ture, and he will avail himself of this plea of ne- 
cessity, and perhaps place around him an armed 
band of a million of men, in violation of the law; 
and his menials and partisans and favorites will 



9 



say, here is the precedent for it in the adminis- 
tration of President Abraham Lincoln, in the year 
1861, when the whole Senate of the nation, under 
their oath, indorsed that violation and infraction 
of the Constitution. 

Senators, let me tell you that when you vote 
this resolution, in my judgment, you will not 
only infract the Constitution yourselves, (and it 
is our duty, I hold, to support it,) but, by justi- 
fying and approving the action of the President, 
you will set an example most dangerous to a free 
people, and one that av^II be a step far towards 
the overthrow of our liberties. Others can do as 
they please; but for myself, I cannot and I will 
not sanction the violation of the Constitution of 
my country by any official; I will not applaud 
it; I will disapprove it; I will condemn it in 
every form that I possibly can. 

Mr. WILKINSON. I should like to ask 
the Senator this questioji: whether he approves 
of the action of the Governor of Kentucky, in re- 
fusing to send volunteers here, in response to 
the President's proclamation, to defend this cap- 
ital .' 

Mr. POWELL. I will answer the question 
with a great deal of pleasure. I can say to the 
Senator that I believe all Kentucky approved of 
the action of our Governor, I among the rest. I- 
believe that men there of every political party 
approved it. I believe it is approved by our en- 
tire people. When I say entire, of course there 
may be a few exceptions, but certainly every 
political organization in the State, by public re- 
solve, approved it, and the Legislature of the State 
approved it. 

Mr. WILKINSON. Then I desire to ask the 
Senator whether he wished this capital protected ? 

Mr. POWELL. Yes, sir; I did wish the cap- 
ital protected, and I had supposefl there were 
plenty of nipn here to protect it. 

Mr. President, it strikes me that in the earlier 
and better days of the Republic, instead of being 
engaged in an effort to pass through the Senate a 
resolution approving these violations of the Con- 
stitution by the Chief Executive, we should have 
been engaged in a far different scene. With such 
wanton, such palpable violations of the Constitu- 
tion, the usurping of the war-making power, the 
power to raise armies, the power to provide a 
navy— it strikes me if we we:e in those days we 
should be witnessing a far different scene than 
this. Sir, if the people justly appreciated the lib- 
erty given to them by their fathers, and intended 



to be secured to them by the Constitution, the 
officer who committed these usurpations would 
be arraigned at the bar of the Senate, and be upon 
trial under impeachment; but that does not seem 
to be the temper of these times. 

There is another clause of the Constitution that 
it strikes me has been violated. It is written in 
the Constitution that " no money shall be drawn 
from the Treasury but in consequence of appro- 
priations made by law." I suppose that money 
was drawn from the Treasury, and was expended 
in raising these twenty-two thousand men and 
adding this large number of seamen to the Navy. 
I suppose that moneys have been expended in 
carrying on this blockade. If so, it was in vio- 
lation of the Constitution of the country; and I 
do not see how such things could have been car- 
ried on without money. There was certainly no 
money appropriated by law for that special pur- 
pose — none in the Treasury to be used by the 
President for that purpose; yet it has been done, 
clearly against the Constitution. 

I was struck yesterday with the speech made 
by the distinguished Senator from Oregon, [Mr. 
Baker.] He declared that he was for voting any 
amount of men and any amount of money that 
the President might desire to carry on this vv^ar. 
He declared that he would listen to nothing like 
a compromise; that he had been in favor of a 
peaceable settlement, but that now he was for a 
war, and a war, too, of subjugation; as I under- 
stood him, though he did not use that word. I 
will read what that distinguished Senator said. 
He claims, in the commencement of his speech, 
to be — and I have no doubt he is — the warm per- 
sonal and political friend of the distinguished gen- 
tleman who fills the executive office of the United 
States. He says: 

" I approve, as a personal and political friend of tlie Pres- 
ident, of every measure of liis administration in relation to 
tlie rebellion at present raging in this country. I propose 
to ratify whatever needs ratification. I propose to render 
my clear and distinct approval, not only of the measure, 
but of tlie motive whicli prompted it. I propose to lend the 
whole power of the country, arms, men, money, and place 
them in his hands, witli autliority almost unlimited, until the 
conclusion of this struggle. He has aslied for.f 400,000,000. 
We propose to give hin) $;iOO,000,000. He has asked for 
four hundred thousand men. We propose to give him half 
a million ; and, for my part, if, as I do not apprehend, the 
emergency should be still greater, I will cheerfully add a 
cipher to citlier of these figures. 

" But, sir, while I do that, I desire, !)y my word and my 
vote, to have it clearly understood that I dotluitas a meas- 
ure of war. As I had occasion to say in a very early dis- 
cussion of this question, [ want sudden, bold, forward, 



10 



ileteriiiincd war ; and I do not think anybody can conduct 
war of that kind as well as a dictator." 

The St'iuUor seems to wish to clothe the Presi- 
dent with dictatorial power. Why the necessity 
for that? You have a right to give him all the 
power of the nation, whether it be in its treasury, 
or its armies, or its navies; and he has the chief 
executive command. Why do you want to clothe 1 
him with any more power? It would seem that] 
that was sufficient for all lawful and constitutional ' 
purposes — almost as great as the power of the dic- 
tators of Rome. The Senator seems, however, 
to be willing to clothe the Executive with the 
power to override the Congress and the Constitu- 
tion of his country, and to put all the coordinate 
departments at defiance, for the purpose of crush- 
ing this revolution, or " rebellion," as he calls it, ; 
with the " sharp argument" of the bayonet. The 
Senator says, further: 

" Here, as a Senator, looking beyond tlie ininiediato con- : 
tingency, I still desire to show, by my conduct and my vote, 
that I venerate the principles of the Constitution of the 
United States." 

Sir, that is a strange declaration for that distin- 
guished Senator to have made, after the avowals 
which I have read. He venerates the principles 
of the Constitution of his country! Have I not' 
shown you, sir, that the President of the United 
States has, without warrant of law, raised armies 
and provided navies, which the Constitution de- 
clares that Congress alone can do ? Has he not 
usurped the war-making power, and blockaded ; 
the ports of certain States? Clearly. Has he not 
suspended the writ of habeas corpus ? Has he not 
suspended the laws of the land, and prevented '■ 
the judges from executing the statute in reference 
to the habeas corpus ? All these things he has done; 
and the Senator from Oregon says that he ap- 
proves of everything he has done, and he is will- 
ing to clothe the President with almost dictatorial 
power. Is there any dictatorial power in the 
President of the United States to violate the Con- 
stitution of tlie country ? No, sir. It is strange 
the Senator should express any love or veneration 
for the Constitution, after the most remarkable 
declarations which I have read. But I will read 
another sentence or two from his speech: 

•' My honored friend from Maine [Mr. Fessenden] will 
hear me witness tliat I was perhaps the last man in the 
Senate to give up the liope that something might be done 
by conciliation and compromise — words I never propose to 
use again. I hoped, I sympathized, I struggled to the last." 

We were all gratified at the effort made by the dis- 
tinguished Senator last winter to compromise these 



difficulties, and I regret that in the effort that will, 
perhaps, be made in the future to compromise them 
we shall be deprived of the aid of that distinguished 
and eloquent Senator. He worked with ability 
and he worked with zeal to adjust these difficul- 
ties, and I sorely regretted that he could not bring 
to the standard a single member of the Senate 
from his side of the Chamber. I believe the hon- 
orable Senator alone, of all on that side of , the 
Chamber, voted for any of the compromise meas- 
ures so zealously urged by Senators on this sida — 
by my then distinguished»colleague, by the late 
eloquent Senator from Illinois, myself, and others. 
I do not think my worthy friend should stop so 
short in his mission of compromise and recon- 
ciliation. He seems to have become exceedingly 
ferocious and blood-thirsty. I hoped he would 
not weary of well doing until he converted the 
Republican side of this Chamber to those compro- 
mise measures. We all on this side were for them, 
are now for them, and would like to see this war 
settled and peace restored. We have, in fact, " no 
stomach for this fight;" we do not wish to see our 
citizens shedding each other's blood. But the 
distinguished Senator further declares: 

" Now I hope to be among the last of all men willing to 
lay down arins at all. I will never vote to do it till, with- 
out treaty, the flag of the United States waves over every 
portion of its territory, and over a population either enthu- 
siastically rallying beneath its shadow, or else abjectly sub- 
j ect to its sway." 

Ah! that sounds very much like subjugation! 

"Till then, give the President a million men ; till then, 
give him not only the whole revenue of the Government, 
but the whole properly of the people ; do not refuse a single 
regiment; do not furl a single sail ; do not abate a single 
jot oflilhyour embattled vigor, till that hour shall come; 
but when peace returns, resume the condition and the arts 
of peace. Do not make peace until the glory of the Amer- 
ican flag shall bo its own defense." 

After complimenting the gallantry of the south- 
; ern men, andthinking that perhaps reverses may 
jbe met with in the efforts to conquer them, the 
Senator goes on to say: 

" But, however that may be, it may be that instead of 
finding, within a year, loyal States sending members to 
Congress, and replacing their Senators upon this floor, we 
may have to reduce them to the condition of Territories, 
and send from Massachusetts or from Illinois Governors 

to control them." 

j 

What, Senators, do you think of that .senti- 
ment, which was expressed by the distinguished 
Senator from Oregon, the personal and confiden- 
; tial friend of the President, and, I think I can say 
I without reflection upon any gentleman upon the 



11 



other side of tlie Chamber, one of the most dis- 
tinguished and able Senators on this floor? That 
Senator has declared his reverence for the Con- 
stitution of his country, and he undertakes this 
war — for what? It is a war nominally to sustain 
the Union. Now I ask my learned friend from 
Oregon if he thinks that he will maintain the con- 
stitutional Union of our fathers by reducing sov- 
ereign States to provinces, and sending to Caro- 
lina, to Mississippi, or to Louisiana, Governors 
from Massachusetts and Illinois. The remedy 
proposed is worse than the disease. What, sir; 
restore this Union by reducing sovereign States 
to provinces, and sending Governors from other 
States to rule over tl^em? That would be the de- 
struction of the Union; you would effect by that 
means the very thing that you take up arms to 
avert. You proclaim a war to save the Union; 
and when you accomplish the result that my friend 
from Oregon says he is willing to accomplish if 
necessary, you have then destroyed the Union; 
you have no longerfree, sovereign States; but you 
have conquered provinces of menials and slaves, 
governed by men from Massachusetts and Illi- 
nois. I ask the Senator again, if that is restoring 
the Union ? I have always supposed that this 
Union was formed of free, sovereign, independent 
States or Commonwealths; but the Senator, in 
order to maintain the Union, would blot these 
States out of existence, and hand them over to the 
strong arm of the North as conquered provinces; 
and then, for grace and mercy, he would send 
from Massachusetts Governors to rule the people 
of Louisiana and South Carolina. All this the 
Senator will do in the name of that Constitution 
which he professes to revere. The Constitution 
of the Senator's country and of my country de- 
clares that " the United States shall guaranty to 
every State in this Union a republican form of 
government;" and yet the Senator in his speech 
proclaims that he is willing to reduce the South 
to conquered provinces, and give them Governors 
from Massachusetts and Illinois; and in the very 
same speech he expresses his reverence for the 
Constitution. Would these States have repub- 
lican governments when you had put the iron heel 
of your military power on them, when you had 
overthrown their liberty, when you had deprived 
them of the right to elect Governors, and sent a 
Massachusetts Governor to Louisiana, or Texas, 
or any State South ? 

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Sen- 



ator from Kentucky give way to the Senator from 
Oregon ? 

Mr. POWELL. With pleasure. 

Mr. BAKER. The Senator from Kentucky is 
catechising me, and I will reply. 

Mr. POWELL. Not catechizing. 

Mr. BAKER. It was very courteously done; 
and I will reply to it. He accuses me of want of 
reverence for the Constitution, because I said that, 
in some circumstances, I would govern those 
States as Territories. He tells me that the Con- 
stitution guaranties to those States a republican 
form of government. I tell him that a territorial 
form of government is a republican form of gov- 
ernment; and I told him so when I was going to 
vote to admit Kansas as a State, and he would 
not. It is true, that a territorial form of govern- 
ment may be a republican form of government 
as well as a State government may be. That is 
the answer to that. • 

In the next place, I desire to remind him that we 
are now in a state of what he calls warwith tliirty, 
forty, fifty thousand men within five niles of this 
Capitol; and, as was said somewheie yesterday, 
the Senate of the United States is wifiiin the ho;; 
ing of hostile guns. This is not a tii/ie or place ;. 
mince measures or words. If he /li ad read the 
wh6le of the remarks which he dooS me the honor 
to comment on, he would havrse^n that I said I 
hoped the Union sentiment wculd return, rekindle 
in those States. I hope thfi- they will yet send 
Representatives, as disling'isheQ — and none can 
be more so— as true as myio.norabie friend from 
Tennessee, [Mr. Johnson j now before me; but I 
did say, and, in spite of he lulminations of the 
Senator from Kentucky I shall continue to re- 
peat, that if they will lot come here as States, 
we will not lot them (ut of the Union for that 
reason. If they will nu govern themselves in 
Congress, we will govprn them. Rather than sep- 
arate from them, anc; loga them, we will govern 
them as Territories, an\ govern them a great deal 
better than they will 'i.yern themselves. That is 
what 1 said ; and I trv/u the Senator will not in- 
tentionally misrepresent it. 

I add but one othei word. He has been pleased 
to allude to my relations to the President. I beg 
to leave to say that hevcr in my life have I con- 
versed with the Pr. ..■:'{ directly or indirectly 
on that subject ; i ■ > very sure that, in the 
midst of the very able (..abinet that surrounds 
him, and Senators j ar more distinguished in this 
body, and far long- ,• h'ie,I should be almost the 



12 



last person tlii-ouj;h whom lie would seek to pre- 
sent his sentimeiils, if he needed anybody. Bui, 
sir, he needs nobody. His inaugural message 
and his later message explains so well the kindly, 
noble sentiments that he entertains for the South 
as well as the North, that nothing which I could 
say, if he were to authorize me, would add to it. 
Mr. POWELL. I certainly had no desire to 
misrepresent the distinguished Senator from Ore- 
gon, and I feel very confident that I did not do it; 
for I was careful to read the Senator's positions 
from his speech as reported in the Globe, which 
I hold in my hand. Now, the Senator says that 
a territorial form of government is a republican 
form of government. I was astonished thatagen- 
tleman so eminent as is the Senator should resort 
to what I call a very shallow subterfuge to avoid 
the position which 1 took. Would the Senator 
say that the Government would be fulfilling that 
clause c^'ic Constitution which says- the United 
States shall guaranty to every State in this Union 
a republican form of government, if it reduced a 
free State, ma of the sovereign States of this 
Union, to th* condition of a Territory.' I am con- 
fident tli(- disinguislied Senator would contend for 
no such unti-iable position. That our territorial 
government.s tre republican to some extent is very 
true. They Mi'ided for people who are not 
sovereig'ii- i^- ' " provided for our distant Ter- 
ritories whC" '' ' '' '->>ndition is not such as to en- 
title them to eiJtcr thVamily of States as members 
of the Coiifedcrn. '■"• U'hfy are governed for the 
pui-pose of prcjiarJi ..* ^ -i to enter the Union as 
States, and for that onijV 

But will the Senatorifny -lat he observes the 
Constitution of his couVtry. which guaranties to 
each State in this Union ■• reimblican form of gov- 
ernment, by destroying iSuue organization and 
reducing it to the coiuliiVi of a Territory, and 
sending Governors froio'>^her States to govern 
!'•' 1 am sure my friend V'ill not do such injus- 
tice to his own ability as t? assume and urge any 
such position. \ 

I expressed, a few moma'"s ago, my great re- 
gret that my distinguished friend from Oregon 
had withdrawn his adheren-'> from those of us 
who desired peace and crnicj^'^'ion; who desired 
a settlement of the vexed que^-tiiuis agitating the 
country without a re.sort lo a^nis. I know how 
lillyl appreciated tliat Senat'^'""-'^ movements last 
lession, and I deeply regreticd tliat his able and 
loquent advocacy of peace propositions and 
mendments to tlie Constituij. ': ''ad so little in- 



fluence upon Senators upon his side of the Cham- 
ber. I still declare, to-day, tiiat I desire these 
difficulties to be settled in any other way than by 
a recourse to arms. I do not believe that this 
Union will ever be reinstated, or that it will ever 
be held together by force of arms. I believe that 
those who really love the Union, those who wish 
to restore the union of these States, those who 
wish to bring them back in harmony under the 
Constitution of the country, desire to avert war. 
I said in my place last winter that I believed war 
was equivalent to disunion. I solemnly believe 
to-day that every battle you fight will widen and 
deepen the chasm that divides the States of this 
Union. In my judgment, Senators, you can never 
reunite this distracted, broken Confederacy by 
force of arms. 1 do not believe that one section 
can ever conquer the other; but if it could, so far 
from thai bringing about the result for which you 
go to war, you would have produced the very op- 
posite; you would have forever destroyed the con- 
stitutional Union. 

Senators, in my judgment, we should make 
every effort to settle this matter peaceably. I 
would like, to see this war instantly cease on both 
sides, and then see the States that are now ar- 
rayed in hostile attitude against each other, ex- 
haust every means possible for the peaceful set- 
tlement of the difficulties hf such amendments to 
the Constitution as would satisfy all parties, and 
allow us to live in peace and harmony once more 
las a united people. I desire to see this Union 
reunited, and this constitutional Confederacy go 
on as a whole as much as any man in this Cham- 
ber. But I feel confident that j'ou can never effect 
that by arms. You must do it by compromise; 
you must do it by conciliation. You cannot do 
it by force. I heartily concurred with the Sena- 
tor from Illinois, (no\tr, I regret, no more,) the late 
Mr. Douglas, in the speech which he made here 
on the 15th of March last. It so fully meets my 
views on this qfll'Stion of coercion, that I will 
send it forward, and ask the Clerk to read it. 

The Clerk read, as follow^: 

" I prefer such iin amicable settlement to peaceable dis- 
union ; and I piclbr it a thousand times to civil war. If 
we can adopt such amondiiients as will be satisfactorv' to 
Virf,'inia, Nortii Carolina, Tennessee, and the other border 
States, the plan of pacification which will satisfy them will 
create a Union party in the cotton States, which will soon 
embrace a large majority of the pi-ople in those States, and 
bring tliem back of their own free will and accord ; and thus 
restore, strengthen, and perpetuate this glorious old Union 
forever. I repeat, whatever guarantees will satisfy Mary- 
1 land and the border States (the States now in the Union) 



13 



.will create a Union parly in tlie seceded States that will 
bring them liaek by tlie voluntary action of their own people. 
Vou can restore and preserve the Government in that mode. 
You can do it in no other. 

"War Is disunion. War is final, eternal separation. 
Hence, disguise it as you may, every Union man in Amer- 
ica must advocate such amendments tBlhe Constitution 
as will preserve peace and restore the Union ; wliile every 
disunionist, whether openly or secretly plotting its dcstruc- 
'l tion, is the advocate of peaceful secession, or of war, as 
the surest means of rendering reuaion and reconstruction 
impossible. I have too much respect for his intellect to 
believe, for one nionient, tliat there is a man for war who 
is not a disunionist jjcrse. Hence I do not mean, if I can 
prevent it, that the enemies of the Uiiion — men plotting to 
destroy it — shall drag this country into war, under the pre- 
text of protecting the public property and enforcing the 
laws and collecting revenue, when their object is disunion, 
and war the means of accomplishing a cherished purpose. 
" The disunionists, therefore, are divided into two classes: 
the one open, the other secret, disunionijt. The one is in 
favor of peaceful secession and a recognition of independ- 
eace ; the other is in fovor of war as the surest means of 
accomplishing the object, and of making the separation 
final and eternal. I am a Union man, and hence against 
war; but if the Union must be temporarily broken by a 
revolution, and tlie establishment of a de facto government 
by some of the States, let no act be done that vi'ill prevent 
restoration and future preservation. Peace is the only 
policy that can lead to that result. 

" But we are told, and we hear it repeated everywhere, 
that we muiit find out whether we have got a Government. 
' Have we a Government ." is the question, and we are told 
we must test that question by using the military power to 
put down all discontented spirits. Sir, this question, ' have 
we a Government." has been propounded by every tyrant 
who has tried to keep his feet on the necks of the people 
since the world began. When the barons demanded Magna 
Charta from King John at Runnymede, he exclaimed, 
' Have wc a Government." and called for Ills army to put 
down the discontented barons. When Charles 1 atiterapted 
to collect the ships' money in disregard of the rights of the 
people, and was resisted by them, he exclaimed, ' Have 
^xli a Government.'' We cannot treat with rebels; put 
down the traitors ; we must show tliat we have a Govern- 
ment.' When James II wasdriven from the throne of Eng- 
land for trampling on the liberties of the people, he called 
for his army, and exclaimed, ' Let us show that we have 
a Government.' When George III called upon his army 
to put down the rebellion in America, Lord North cried 
lustily, ' No compromise with traitors; let us demonstrate 
that we have a Government.' When, in 1848, the people 
rose upon their tyrants all over Europe and demanded 
guarantees for tlieir rights, every crowned head exclaimed, 
• H.ive we a Government." and appealed to the army to 
vindicate their authority and enforce the law. 

" Sir, the history of the world does not fail to condemn 
the folly, weakness, and wickedness of that Government 
which draws its sword upon its own people when they de- 
manded guarantees for their rights. This cry, that we must 
Itave aGovernment, is mepOy following the example of the 
besotted Hoiirbon, who never learned anything by misfor- 
tune, never forgave an injury, never forgot an affront. Must 



we demonstrate that we have got a Governmetrt, and co- 
erce obedience without reference to the justice or injustice 
of the complaint.' Sir, whenever ten million people pro- 
claim to you, with one unanimous voice, that they appre- 
hend their rights, tlieir firesides, and their family altars are 
in danger, it becomes a wise Government to listen to the 
appeal, and to remove the apprehension. History does not 
record an example where any human government has been 
strong enough to crush ten million people into subjection 
when they believed their rights andjiberties were imperiled 
without first converting tli(! government itself into a des- 
potism, and destroying the last vestige of freedom." 

Mr. POWELL. Mr. President, the sentiment 
expressed in the extract just read from the speech 
of the illustrious Senator from Illinois, now no 
more, fully meets my approval. I approved it 
when it was uttered in this Chamber; I approve 
it now. I verily believe that those who propose 
to maintain the Union of these States by arms are 
disunionists. They may not wish to destroy the 
Union; but the very means to which they resort 
for the purpose of saving it, will most assuredly 
accomplish its destruction. Hence I have been 
from the beginning opposed to war, and I am now 
opposed to it. I think that, in this age, as a Chris- 
tian, enlightened people, we should settle these 
difficulties without a resort to arms. If Senators 
on the other side of the Chamber last -winter had 
cooperated with Senators on this side, and we 
could have had a corresponding action in the other 
House, I have no doubt all theSe difficulties could 
have been settled. It is well known that propo- 
sitions to amend the Constitution were introduced 
here, and thateverybody ontliis side of the Cham- 
ber approved them, and was ready to go for them; 
and why were they not passed ? It was because 
the whole Republican side of the Senate put their 
faces against them. With the exception , perhaps, 
of the distinguished Senator from Oregon, I do 
not believe they got a vote from that side of the 
Senate. My friend from Connecticut [Mr. Dix- 
on] I know made a gallant and patriotic speech, 
but I do not remember that he voted for one of 
those resolutions, though I will do him the jus- 
tice to say that I believe, if he thought they would 
have passed, he woul»have done so. We did 
everything in our power, by proposing constitu- 
tional amendments, to avert the difficulty, and to 
restore harmony to a distracted country. AVhy 
was it not done.' 

Senators, you on that side of the Chamber are 
responsible for it; and when the passion^i of men 
shall have abated, and this wild fanaticism, this 
warlike spirit that now sweeps over the land shall 
have subsided, the people of this country will 



14 



calmly and dispassionately look into the history 
of these times, and if it shall be, as I fear it will 
be, that this Union is forever destroyed, that this 
mighty fabric of our fiithers is torn, this great 
Government overthrown, history, impartial his- 
tory, will hold you responsible for it; for you 
could have settled tiic controversy, you could 
have settled it peaceably; you could have set- 
tled it without impairing any rights of any man 
or any State in the North, by granting proper 
guarantees to the South which would have done 
you, your property, or your States, no harm. 
You declined to do it; the responsibility is with 
you. I hoped, when the President summoned us 
to meet in this extraordinary session, that I 
should have seen in the message of that distin- 
guished individual some proposition of compro- 
mise, of peace, and of settlement; but I was sorry, 
on hearing it read, to find that it contained no 
such proposition. I was in hopes that the distin- 
guished Senators on iheother side of the Chamber 
would introduce some proposition to restore peace 
to this distracted country; to reunite, if possible, 
these States; to cause this war, that can result in 
no good to any, but irreparable and incalculable 
injury to all, to cease. 

Sir, I have no doubt now that a thousand mil- 
lions of money will not make up to this country 
the losses that will have ensued in consequence 
of this revolution. You will go on; you will 
vote here, perhaps, ^500,000,000 to carry on this 
war for a single year; and if you bring into the 
field five hundred thousand men, on information 
I get from distinguished military men, you will 
have to be very economical in the administration 
of your military affairs if it does not cost you 
every dollar of your $500,000,000 to support 
your five hundred thousand men. You will not 
get enough revenue in the mean time from the or- 
dinary sources to pay one third of the expenses 
of your civil Government. The country owing 
now nearly one hundred million, will, at the end 
of another year, owe six or seven hundred mil- 
lions of money; and eve% provided you get the 
money, at the end of another year that debt will 
be doubled, and the revenues that you will get 
from your tariff will not raise money enough at 
the end of two years to pay the interest on your 
public debt. In the mean time your commerce is 
destroyed, your trade broken down, every indus- 
trial pursuit, every material interest destroyed; 
your people are thrown out of employment, the 
workshops closed, your shipping rotting; every 



art of peace, and everything that is calculated to. 
make a people great, free, prosperous, and happy, 
will be prostrated, and what will you have done? 
Will you have reunited the States? No, sir; you 
never can reunite them by the sword. You will 
have butcherM hundreds of thousands of your 
countrymen. There will be thousands of widows 
and orphans made upon both sides. You may 
sack cities, you may burn houses, you may cut 
throats for twenty years, and you will never re- 
instate States and reconstruct and reform this 
Union by that course. I tell you. Senators, it is 
madness to think of it. 

It is our duty, then, so far from approving 
what the President has done, by our votes, to 
give that distinguished magistrate astern rebuke 
for the power that he has assumed; for the vio- 
lence he has done to the Constitution of his coun- 
try. We should tell him that we consider that 
our liberties are held by virtue of the supremacy 
of the laws, and in no other way; a!id that we 
will allow no magistrate, with impunity, to vio- 
late the Constitution and the laws of the land 
without giving him a stern rebuke. 

I believe it was the custom in the free common- 
wealth of Athens to decree all her magistrates who 
did not administer her government, orcxecute the 
functions of the government according to law, to 
be tyrants; and it was well done, for that people 
knew that liberty dwelt only under the shelter of 
the supremacy of law. One of the most alarming 
symptoms to my mind of these troubled times is 
that although such bold, palpable, and unmistak- 
able violations of the Constitution of the country 
have been committed, with the Legislatures of six- 
teen or seventeen States of this Union in session, 
I have not seen a single legislative resolve cen- 
suring the Chief Magistrate for his conduct. It 
appears as if the spirit of liberty that animated 
our ancient sires had departed, when we behold 
men ready to see the Constitution of their country 
overturned, and throw up their hats and shout 
praises to him who does the deed. To my mind 
it is a most fearful indication of the degeneracy 
of the times in which v/e are. 

We hear from the other side of nothing but war 
and carnage; we hear nothing of peace; we hear 
nothing of compromise. Senators say they have 
used the word "compromise" for the last time. 
I believe no one could make that announcement 
but the Senator from Oregon; for if any of the 
other gentlemen on that side were in a compro- 
misinsr mood I did not discover it last winter when 



15 



the votes were taken. Notwithstanding that, I 
yet hope we may settle this question peaceably. 
Let us cease these hostilities for tlie present. Let 
us make an effort for adjustment. We certainly 
never shall accomplisl^it unless we make an effort. 
Let us make every effort we canijand if we fail 
we shall have discharged our duty. 

If there is one thing in our Constitution to con- 
tradistinguish it from others, it is that the military 
power of this Government is kept subordinate to 
the civil. Here we find the President of the Uni- 
ted States subordinating the civil to the military, 
reversing the thing; and yet, sir, I suppose we 
shall find Senators voting for it. What would 
have been the opinions of your fathers and mine, 
if it had been proposed to them that they should 
approve of the acts of a magistrate, when, con- 
trary to the law and the Constitution of the coun- 
try, he had subordinated the civil to the military 



authority ? The military authority should be gov- 
erned by and in obedience and in subordination 
to the civil authority. The Constitution and the 
genius of our Government there place it. The 
President of the United States has seen fit, by his 
acts, that are recited in this joint resolution, to say 
differently, and we are called upon here to legalize, 
to ratify, even to approve, these acts. 1 trust that 
the American Senate will never be so degenerate. 
I have spoken longer than I supposed or ex- 
pected. My single object was to state very 
briefly the reasons why I could not vote for the 
resolution. I had no expectation of satisfying 
Senators on the other side that they should, with 
me, vote against it; but I felt it to be my duty to 
myself; I felt it due to the gallant State which I 
represent; I felt it due to every one who loves con- 
stitutional liberty, to raise my voice against the 
overthrow of the Constitution of my country. 



54 W 







9\r 



' O , 4 • . «\ 

1> 






"-^O 

.^^ 
















,^ -q.-*.T 












\P<b' 







vv 









'oK 



«*^< 









V .o*..-^;^-.v .**\'>i;^%V ,o-^..-^.% 







o 




^* ^ % 'S 












0^ t'V.** ^- 














WERT 
BOOKBINDINC 



"^ P»<.- <*>. -•• ^-^^ . 







